23 July 2014: The UN General Assembly held the fourth “structured dialogue” for Member States, the private sector, and civil society to discuss possible arrangements for a facilitation mechanism to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies. The co-moderators of the dialogue will submit a report, along with elements for a procedural resolution, to the UNGA President by the end of July, and expect to receive further guidance in early September.

The structured dialogue series was mandated by Resolution 68/210. The first two dialogues were dedicated to taking stock of the process to develop options for a technology facilitation mechanism (TFM), including by assessing existing mechanisms and processes. The third dialogue identified areas of convergence while considering possible functions to be performed by a TFM. The fourth dialogue – held on 23 July 2014, at UN Headquarters in New York, US – aimed to identify common ground on possible arrangements for a TFM.

In his opening remarks, co-moderator Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota, Deputy Permanent Representative of Brazil, noted technology’s centrality in the outcome of the UNGA Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). He said technology is reflected in 19 targets across 11 proposed SDGs, as well as the subject of a separate section under SDG 17 on means of implementation and the global partnership. Thomas Gass, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), underlined that technology will not naturally flow to the targets and SDGs, but needs a “push.” Taking the floor later, the US recalled that the OWG sent forward not a consensus document, but a proposal to be discussed, and said technology has not been sufficiently discussed in that forum and needs further consideration.

In order to identify common ground, the co-moderators elaborated four possible modalities and organization of a TFM: 1. Providing better information and mapping of existing facilitation activities through an electronic knowledge platform; 2. Improving coherence and synergy between existing facilitation activities through creating an online-based clearinghouse of existing initiatives and networks in different thematic fields or an inter-agency coordination mechanism such as UN-Water or UN-Energy; 3. conducting further analyses of technology needs and gaps in addressing them; and 4. establishing a UN TFM.

The UN TFM would consist of: a) a technology development fund, to strengthen global research and development (R&D) and demonstration cooperation, technology transfer and participation of developing countries; b) a network of technology transfer, innovation and information centers, based on existing global and regional centers, online platforms, clearing houses, international conventions with technology provisions and economic partnership agreements; c) a network of universities, institutes and research, development and innovation institutions; d) capacity development programmes and knowledge platforms, and technology needs assessment; e) public-private partnerships (PPPs) including on IP systems and licensing; and f) a management and coordination structure within the UN, including regional and sub-regional cooperative mechanisms and national coordination units.

Bolivia, also for the Group of 77 and China, Costa Rica, Brazil, Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Egypt, and India expressed their support for Option 4, mentioning that the other options are integral parts of Option 4. The EU saw merit in Option 1 and Option 2, noted that Option 3 is already undertaken by the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN), Green Climate Fund (GCF), and UN Environment Programme (UNEP), inter alia, and stressed that Option 4 is “premature.” US, Japan, Canada, and Australia expressed similar views, with Australia stressing that there is no mandate or consensus so far in regard to a UN TFM.

Japan said governments do not have the right to decide on the transfer of technology, and cannot force the private sector to transfer their state-of-the-art technologies on a voluntary basis. The ETC Group, speaking later, said most of the key innovative developments in technology were developed by either the military or the public sector (universities or research centers), and it is an overstatement to say the private sector drives innovation.

Patriota advised delegates not to treat options 1, 2, 3, and 4 as mutually exclusive blocks. Co-moderator Paul Seger, Permanent Representative of Switzerland, observed consensus on Options 1 and 2, and suggested that progress should be made on them in parallel with continuing the discussions on Options 3 and 4.

Co-moderators also informed participants about the UNGA President’s suggestion to submit a procedural resolution to request the UN Secretary-General to take the structured dialogues into account in his synthesis report, and also to encourage Member States to reach a conclusion during the 69th Session of the UNGA. India, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan supported the idea of such a resolution, while Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, the UK and the US expressed reservations about its added value.

It was decided that the co-moderators will submit elements for such a resolution along with their report based on the dialogues’ discussions, and will highlight the divergent views among Member States. [Structured Dialogues Webpage] [Co-moderators’ Notes on Dialogue 3] [IISD RS Sources]